WOGS, CHINKS, ABOS AND WHITIES
Only a fool believes you could legislate to determine a degree of personal offence.
Australian political parties Greens and Labor’s Left dream of the perfect egalitarian PC world where no-one is offended by anything and everyone sleeps in the same conjugal bed. Well, that’s not the way it works, fellas, and it’s you lot that have made an art form of offending people.
No-one can agree with racial vilification, although we all come across it, but this debate is inane and widens, rather than closes, "the gap".
Only a fool believes you could legislate to determine a degree of personal offence. Is “whitie c...” less racially offensive than, “boong”? Is “gwailo” (white ghost) more racially offensive than “chink”? Is “wog” racially offensive to a southern European when he refers to himself as a wog?
The terms, “Pom”, “Kiwi”, “Newfie”, “Yank”, “Jap”, “Coon”, “Abo”, “Chink”, “Wetback”, “Fuzzy Wuzzy”, “Raghead” are all racially based, but which is legally racial bigotry? All, none or some?
What about "Shortarse" ,"Fatso" and "Freckles"? Are they less or more offensive?
Those terms, and hundreds of others, will always be used, sometimes affectionately and sometimes not. It depends on how they are used, how well you know the person and in what context.
There is no law that can decide "offence"! And there is no law that can determine one’s legitimate or feigned degree of offence.
In the 1970s Labor tried to outlaw the term “Wog”, but unfortunately “Pom” and “Kiwi” were caught in the same legislative net, it was duly ignored.
Let’s not kid ourselves, existing law is all about Aborigines. But Aborigines are as guilty as we are of racially discriminatory remarks, at least in my experience. Reverse racism is rampant wherever Aborigines reside in numbers.
I have been forced to drink my beer in a "Whitie" section but you can bet the reverse would be unacceptable.
The current law is malleable, interpretive and requires racial discrimination by the courts themselves in order to enforce it.
PM Abbott’s proposed changes to current legislation will place "free speech" above what an individual might perceive as “offensive”. And "free speech" should win that battle every time.
Andrew Bolt was legally vilified for discussing “white Aborigines” and how they use a nominated ethnicity for financial advantage.
Okay, Bolt got a few facts wrong but he was right to say this is happening and right to ask is it fair.
Legally you are not required to prove you are of Aboriginal descent, that's "offensive", you need only to declare you are, and you can then join an entitlement queue that heavily favours Aborigines.
Is that fair to those who legitimately depend on social services?
This racial anomaly is what Andrew Bolt was debating, yet it was deemed illegal for him to do so, much to "white Aborigines'" delight.
Free speech was what our forefathers fought for, it’s a jewel in our Aussie ethic. No Labor/Green Lefty or Aboriginal activist should be allowed to take it from us and we want it back!
But “Knights and Dames”, Tony?... WTF? That certainly shoves it right up Malcolm Turnbull but surely there are better diversions from the main game than that sort of garbage! ‘The Pickering Post’
Post a Comment